Objective We updated and expanded a previous systematic literature review examining the impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. Methods We searched the academic literature for reviews and primary research articles published between January 2006 and November 2010 that examined the socioeconomic impact of six tobacco control interventions in adults: that is, price increases, smoke-free policies, advertising bans, mass media campaigns, warning labels, smoking cessation support and community-based programmes combining several interventions. We included English-language articles from countries at an advanced stage of the tobacco epidemic that examined the differential impact of tobacco control interventions by socioeconomic status or the effectiveness of interventions among disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. All articles were appraised by two authors and details recorded using a standardised approach. Data from 77 primary studies and seven reviews were synthesised via narrative review. Results We found strong evidence that increases in tobacco price have a pro-equity effect on socioeconomic disparities in smoking. Evidence on the equity impact of other interventions is inconclusive, with the exception of non-targeted smoking cessation programmes which have a negative equity impact due to higher quit rates among more advantaged smokers. Conclusions Increased tobacco price via tax is the intervention with the greatest potential to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. Other measures studied appear unlikely to reduce inequalities in smoking without specific efforts to reach disadvantaged smokers. There is a need for more research evaluating the equity impact of tobacco control measures, and development of more effective approaches for reducing tobacco use in disadvantaged groups and communities.

There is a strong socio-economic gradient in both tobacco-and alcohol-related harm. One possible factor contributing to this social gradient may be greater availability of tobacco and alcohol in more socially-deprived areas. A higher density of tobacco and alcohol outlets is not only likely to increase supply but also to raise awareness of tobacco/alcohol brands, create a competitive local market that reduces product costs, and influence local social norms relating to tobacco and alcohol consumption. This paper examines the association between the density of alcohol and tobacco outlets and neighbourhood-level income deprivation. Using a national tobacco retailer register and alcohol licensing data this paper calculates the density of alcohol and tobacco retail outlets per 10,000 population for small neighbourhoods across the whole of Scotland. Average outlet density was calculated for neighbourhoods grouped by their level of income deprivation. Associations between outlet density and deprivation were analysed using one way analysis of variance. There was a positive linear relationship between neighbourhood deprivation and outlets for both tobacco (p <0.001) and off-sales alcohol (p <0.001); the most deprived quintile of neighbourhoods had the highest densities of both. In contrast, the least deprived quintile had the lowest density of tobacco and both off-sales and on-sales alcohol outlets. The social gradient evident in alcohol and tobacco supply may be a contributing factor to the social gradient in alcohol- and tobacco-related disease. Policymakers should consider such gradients when creating tobacco and alcohol control policies. The potential contribution to public health, and health inequalities, of reducing the physical availability of both alcohol and tobacco products should be examined in developing broader supply-side interventions.

Background Ethnic disparities in cancer survival have been documented in many populations and cancer types. The causes of these inequalities are not well understood but may include disease and patient characteristics, treatment differences and health service factors. Survival was compared in a cohort of Maori (Indigenous) and non-Maori New Zealanders with colon cancer, and the contribution of demographics, disease characteristics, patient comorbidity, treatment and healthcare factors to survival disparities was assessed. Methods Maori patients diagnosed as having colon cancer between 1996 and 2003 were identified from the New Zealand Cancer Registry and compared with a randomly selected sample of non-Maori patients. Clinical and outcome data were obtained from medical records, pathology reports and the national mortality database. Cancer-specific survival was examined using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox hazards modelling with multivariable adjustment. Results 301 Maori and 328 non-Maori patients with colon cancer were compared. Maori had a significantly poorer cancer survival than non-Maori (hazard ratio (HR)=1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.71) that was not explained by demographic or disease characteristics. The most important factors contributing to poorer survival in Maori were patient comorbidity and markers of healthcare access, each of which accounted for around a third of the survival disparity. The final model accounted for almost all the survival disparity between Maori and non-Maori patients (HR=1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.47). Conclusion Higher patient comorbidity and poorer access and quality of cancer care are both important explanations for worse survival in Maori compared with non-Maori New Zealanders with colon cancer.

Comorbidity has a well documented detrimental effect on cancer survival. However it is difficult to disentangle the direct effects of comorbidity on survival from indirect effects via the influence of comorbidity on treatment choice. This study aimed to assess the impact of comorbidity on colon cancer patient survival, the effect of comorbidity on treatment choices for these patients, and the impact of this on survival among those with comorbidity.